Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

DOMA's dust. I'm predicting a vote of 6 to 3 to overturn it with Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Roberts voting to overturn and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to keep it.

Prop 8 is more difficult. They could rule on standing which would overturn prop 8 in California but have no effect on the remainder of the country and not even touch on the constitutional issues. Or they could decide on the merits of it in which case I'd hope for a broad ruling either 5 to 4 or even 6 to 3 with the same justices.

14th amendment until Brown v Board of Education was close to a century.

The 19th amendment for women to vote was 1920 -- well, if you want to figure out a starting point for that movement feel free to. The first known female voter in the (pre-) US was Lydia Taft in 1756, Massachusetts.

You couldn't fuck each other in the ass until ten years ago, so leap frogging to marriage before making workplace discrimination illegal nationally is "fast".

Its an odd position the court is in because highly its unusual and unprecedented for the court to hear a case where its not established if one of the litigants have standing to bring the suit to begin with . I would imagine that the fact there is a question on wether the case is indeed a solid legal case is enough to get an extremely conservative judgement if not being thrown out all together .

Getting a broad decision on prop 8 which would legalize marriage throughout the country was a long shot. It most likely will be decided on the standing issue and allow the lower court ruling to stand.

However, I still believe That DOMA will be overturned!! The court can't (shouldn't) punt the ball on this one. IMHO Bill Clinton signed the law knowing full well it wouldn't stand up in court (not to mention it put a stop to the "constitutional amendment" talk of republicans at the time). I really dont think he would have signed it had he thought it would pass judicial muster.

President Clinton was way up in the polls in 1996. It was that awful man, Dick Morris, who pushed for signing DOMA. He believed it would save Clinton a tiny drop in the polls. Let's be real. Clinton made a political decision on the backs of gays. I applaud him for taking on gays serving in the military, as soon as he took office. But, the DOMA issue has been hard to overlook.

So, he now says it is unconstitutional. Well, why did he sign it? The constitutionality hasn't changed. I also find it interesting all the Dems lining up to support marriage equality, right before the court hears the case--when it seems more politically favorable to do so. But, I suppose better late than never.

I've been wondering about the two couples from California in the Prop 8 case. I can't believe just two couples from a huge state were the only ones to sue.

How does this work? Are their cases the only ones that made it up to the Supreme Court? Did the lawyers just pick their cases to take to the court? Or, is it really that they were the only two couples who sued?

If Prop 8 is ruled to only apply to California, can people in states that passed bans sue and hopefully get to federal court and the Supreme Court? I realize the situation is different. In California, they had the right to marry and voters took that right away. In Kentucky and all the other states, we never had that right. Or, will we have to wait and get voters to vote to do away with the ban? That would take at least another 20 years here, at the very least. It passed by 75% here.

I don't fault Bill Clinton at all. During that time there was a big push for a national constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. Clinton signed DOMA to appease the Republicans and stop the constitutional amendment push which would have been far far worse.

If you know.the bill you are signing will eventually be overturned by the courts isn't that a much better option than a national constitutional amendment banning marriage. I would sign it. He did the right thing.

Started off wonky. There was a bit of criticism for President Obama. The Obama administration declared earlier that the law was unconstitutional and wouldn't defend the law. There was some discussion that if he felt this way why is he still enforcing the law? There was also some discussion as to whether the court can decide on the case.

The arguments about the law were much more favorable than they were on prop 8 yesterday. It's assumed that if they do make a decision on the law there will be at least 5 justices needed to overturn it (I'm still thinking there might be 6 to overturn DOMA...taking wagers?).

I think the most telling piece of today's arguments was when the lawyers read the house brief for when the bill was passed and they said it was passed out of moral disapproval of homosexuality.

Whatever happens, so much change is happening so quickly. Today Show reporter and wknd anchor came out on air, and that she is marrying NBC News correspondent, Stephanie Gosk. Gosk had been stationed in London for a long time. I noticed they brought her back to be a reporter here. Now I know why. They are expecting a baby.

Andersen came out. Don Lemon came out. Thomas Roberts has been out. I just don't think this would have happened even five years ago. And, especially for journalists, because it would seem like they were taking a political view, or promoting one. And, now I am hearing one or more current NFL players may come out. Even if we don't get all we want this time, I can't see how marriage rights can go another decade, without giving them to gay Americans.

Whatever happens, so much change is happening so quickly. Today Show reporter and wknd anchor came out on air, and that she is marrying NBC News correspondent, Stephanie Gosk. Gosk had been stationed in London for a long time. I noticed they brought her back to be a reporter here. Now I know why. They are expecting a baby.

Andersen came out. Don Lemon came out. Thomas Roberts has been out. I just don't think this would have happened even five years ago. And, especially for journalists, because it would seem like they were taking a political view, or promoting one. And, now I am hearing one or more current NFL players may come out. Even if we don't get all we want this time, I can't see how marriage rights can go another decade, without giving them to gay Americans.

I agree Ted.I didn't think things were progressing very fast UNTIL the past 5 years or so.It is inevitable for gay marriage rights but it would be great if the Supreme Court would see the clear inequity and apply the Constitution NOW!ME= Impatient.

But where did I see a slide show, yesterday, of a bunch of young christian types in D.C. holding signs explaining why they were against same-sex marriage. Dumb ass reasoning where the Bible explains ALL REALITY and should direct all USA laws. And misspellings. Crap I know thats the way it is, but its so discouraging that this many young Americans can be so poorly informed about separation of church and state. And hypocritical, cause they would certainly fear and hate sharia law. Freedom to be christian and righteous and prejudiced, and no freedom for any other moral system. I'm usually generous and indulgent of youth, but yesterday I just thought, fucking assholes!!!! And the minorities among them. Preaching dumbass denial of gay civil rights. Shame!

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

But where did I see a slide show, yesterday, of a bunch of young christian types in D.C. holding signs explaining why they were against same-sex marriage. Dumb ass reasoning where the Bible explains ALL REALITY and should direct all USA laws. And misspellings. Crap I know thats the way it is, but its so discouraging that this many young Americans can be so poorly informed about separation of church and state. And hypocritical, cause they would certainly fear and hate sharia law. Freedom to be christian and righteous and prejudiced, and no freedom for any other moral system. I'm usually generous and indulgent of youth, but yesterday I just thought, fucking assholes!!!! And the minorities among them. Preaching dumbass denial of gay civil rights. Shame!

agreed but luckily those who you have just described are SLOWLY shrinking in number.too slow for me but as the sands of time...

on a positive note...the media, news and otherwise, has become very open and the closet door hinges are getting pretty squeaky.

Crap I know thats the way it is, but its so discouraging that this many young Americans can be so poorly informed about separation of church and state.

I wouldn't say it's "many" young Americans that think this way. Recent polling shows that70% of Americans between the ages of 18-40 support marriage equality. At the recent CPAC conference, they noted that the young attendees were almost unanimously supportive of marriage equality.

Of course there are religious nuts. Has been and always will be. However, my unscientific opinion is that the religious zealousness of this country has been declining quite a bit over the past decade.

PS. What's up with France. I watched that on the news and as rather shocked. What ever happened to cest la vie?

In both photosets, it seems that zealot parents are putting words and ideas into their children's heads... I guess this is pretty standard experience of changing cultures and advancing civil rights to everyone...(A middle-aged Swiss woman and her husband made the stupid decision to camp in the countryside of a traditional part of India recently. The husband was tied to a tree while the woman was gang raped. It was a big story in Indian and Switzerland. The other day, the Geneva current event news went to India to cover the whole story. Officials from that region had sort of said the woman was asking for it. Delhi sophisticates were aghast and apologised. The journalists reported on the cultural disrespect for women and the rising tension in traditional areas as things become more international and women generally make progress. Also the gang rapes and the tens of thousands of rapes a year with little followup. The news crew interviewed a lot of men in the region. They were sexist pigs, disgusting views, to my European or Western sensibilities.. Then they interviewed women from all different regions, classes, and young women too. Who ALL explained what sexist pigs these traditional men were. Even the rural women. They expected equal rights, respect, protection of the law. The men couldn't fathom it at all... They spoke against all progress and "western influence". They wanted the status quo, a roll back of progress, isolationism, impunity, power.)

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Not to get off on a tangent about Clinton, but I think it is important to point out how he lead out of fear and what polled well, instead of what's right. In 2004, it has been reported he encouraged John Kerry to come out in favor of bans. Clinton folks deny this. Kerry folks say it is true, and that Kerry said no way. If true, he would be in very similar company with Karl Rove, by using gays for political advantage.

I know it was a different time, but it doesn't make it right. He could have led on the issue, and perhaps we woud be farther along. Preidents do have the power to influence change. While Obama can't get all the credit for the huge change, I have no doubt that it isn't a complete coincidence we've seen so much change, since he became president. To be fair, Obama said he was against gay marriage in 2008. But, I think he was being very strategic to finally get to where we are today. And, he was expanding rights, instead of taking them away, in the meantime.

So, while I like a Clinton very much, I think he failed to lead on this. It was only after public opinion caught up, that he is now changing his views. It is sad that shows like Ellen's sitcom and talk show, Will & Grace, and Modern Family can claim more credit for leading on the issue than he can.

Not to get off on a tangent about Clinton, but I think it is important to point out how he lead out of fear and what polled well, instead of what's right. In 2004, it has been reported he encouraged John Kerry to come out in favor of bans. Clinton folks deny this. Kerry folks say it is true, and that Kerry said no way. If true, he would be in very similar company with Karl Rove, by using gays for political advantage.

I know it was a different time, but it doesn't make it right. He could have led on the issue, and perhaps we woud be farther along. Preidents do have the power to influence change. While Obama can't get all the credit for the huge change, I have no doubt that it isn't a complete coincidence we've seen so much change, since he became president. To be fair, Obama said he was against gay marriage in 2008. But, I think he was being very strategic to finally get to where we are today. And, he was expanding rights, instead of taking them away, in the meantime.

So, while I like a Clinton very much, I think he failed to lead on this. It was only after public opinion caught up, that he is now changing his views. It is sad that shows like Ellen's sitcom and talk show, Will & Grace, and Modern Family can claim more credit for leading on the issue than he can.

So why was Obama "strategic" in 2008, yet Clinton "failed to lead"? I'm not following your logic at all. I'll repeat what Bug said -- while DOMA sucked, it stopped the building momentum for a Constitutional Amendment. I'm very happy that strategy worked. Clinton tried to deal with gays in the military -- he failed, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell came to be -- but it got folks talking about it. If Bill had not done either of those things, I doubt you'd be saying how "strategic" Obama was, because we'd likely not be where we are today.

So why was Obama "strategic" in 2008, yet Clinton "failed to lead"? I'm not following your logic at all. I'll repeat what Bug said -- while DOMA sucked, it stopped the building momentum for a Constitutional Amendment. I'm very happy that strategy worked. Clinton tried to deal with gays in the military -- he failed, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell came to be -- but it got folks talking about it. If Bill had not done either of those things, I doubt you'd be saying how "strategic" Obama was, because we'd likely not be where we are today.

Mike

Since I wasn't as politically involved in the 90's as now, my memory isn't as good on these things. From what I remember and have been googling, there was never any real threat of a federal amendment. Well, not an immediate threat. In fact, no vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment has ever happened. Even back then, it would have been difficult to get two-thirds vote and then three-fourths vote in the states to ratify it. Could have happened, but would have been difficult. And, many are hesitant in messing with the U.S. Constitution, even if they are willing to change the states'.

If there was a growing threat, it seemed like what Dems often do best--negotiate against ourselves and give everything away out of fear of some threat, that probably won't even bear out. If there is some information that shows Clinton acted to stop a Constitutional amendment, I would like to read it. As I said, I wasn't all that involved back then and I may be spouting off about things I don't know the full story on. Seriously, I wouldn't mind being corrected. From all I've been able to read, it was a total political strategy--just like suggesting to Kerry to favor bans in 2004. I admit it is hard to google events that happened before 2000, especially if they didn't get much press coverage. And, Clinton didn't discuss DOMA in his book, that I bought and read.

There is one thing that does bug me a bit about Bill Clinton signing DOMA. No matter what his political reason for doing so was, if he truly felt that the law was unconstitutional (as I believe he did, and which he now says to be true) then regardless he shouldn't have signed it for the simple fact that as president, when he is inaugurated he swears before his country that he will support and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. And for that, he failed regardless of the politics of it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there was some political expediency in Clinton's actions -- even if I think (hope) there was some bigger plan that had a (minute) piece in it. However, I think Obama's 2008 stance was ALSO a bit of political play to help ensure his election - he was OK with saying we deserved less than equal. That was my real question -- why does Obama get a "pass"?

M

edited to add: I don't necessarily have a ton of heartburn on either of their actions -- their elections / reelections were far better options than the alternatives. Although, at the time -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell pissed me off enough that I told everyone and resigned my commission in the US Army.

But everyone is talking about how shows with messages and progressive politics are one important contribution to US culture changing on gay civil rights.... And Friends... Great show but very limited messaging...

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Something just dawned on me tonight. Not sure why I didn't think of it before.

I have friends from KY, who were married in states, such as New York. We had actually planned to marry there on 12/12/12. If DOMA is knocked down, then that would mean gay, married couples would be eligible for Social Security benefits and more, right? Would those couples who married there from other states get those benefits, such as SS benefits? Or, would you actually have to be a legal resident? What about inheritance taxes?

Are inheritance taxes tied to the state you legally reside in, or does it not matter? Some people have homes/assets in different states that get passed along, after death. If you married in New York and had assets there, such as property, but legally reside in KY, would the surviving partner be exempt from paying inheritance tax on the New York property, because you are a legally married couple there, but have to pay it for the KY home, because you wouldn't be considered a legal married couple here, and your name wasn't on the property?

It is complicated and I am sure I am wording this very badly. On the flip side, if you do legally reside in New York, but have a vacation home in Florida, would the surviving spouse be responsible for tax on the Florida home? I always thought when talking inheritance tax on assets such as property, it didn't matter where that property was located. The federal govt adds up the assets you inherited and gives you a tax bill. They do not care where the assets are? In a straight marriage, these question don't come up, because you're legally married in every state, so the spouse would be exempt. And, does it all go back to legally residing in the state that recognizes gay marriages to reap the benefits?

Appears everyone here is stumped and confused, as well. I think I found the answer. Colbert had a guest on, who says if you marry in one of the gay marriage states and move to Georgia, then the federal government doesn't have to give you the benefits. She seemed a little uncertain, to me. I think most are, because it is new territory. I would think the president would have the power to do some executive order to make the IRS, Social Security, etc, to include legally married gays, regardless of where they live now.

Colbert interview about the cases, and he asks the same question I had.

I.don't think that's right. If you are legally married in Massachusetts and move to Texas that shouldn't affect your federal benefits.

Not only that, once DOMA is gone, technically if you are married in one state every other state would need to recognize it per the full faith in credit clause of the constitution. However, that may be . another court fight.

I wish there were a power lesbian couple coming before the court, where one is black and the other white. And the black one is an ivy educated corporate lawyer and the white one a veteran, and public school teacher. And they could start making arguments about how they need to keep their marriage rights cause they are moving to a state where their marriage isn't recognised.. And the Judges ask questions showing that its up to the states, and how same-sex marriage rights are best dealt by the states. And the black woman addresses the court and says, there was a time when I would not have been able to 1)and2)3)4)5)6)listening all the civil rights guaranteed to her by Court decisions.

"But now you say I can't have the benefits of my marriage to my white wife because of some religious beliefs? Right, let me make sure I get this correct? "

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Assuming DOMA gets thrown out -- it will be interesting to see just how the federal benefits get applied. I've read lots of differing opinions:

Only if you live in a state where same-sex marriage is legalEvery stateOnly get benefits from the time of the ruling forwardOnly get benefits from the time of the ruling forward, unless you have a pending lawsuit already filed -- then you "win"Benefits would be retroactive

Time will tell -- I'm hoping for the most sweeping application, of course. I want to get the federal benefits, even though I live in Virginia. Plus -- if I could file an amended tax return for 2012 (when we got married) -- we'd get almost $3,000 back from the US Treasury!!

I kept waiting for someone to bring up the Full Faith & Credit clause -- moving from state to state should not "unmarry" you -- just like if your state lets you drive at a younger age than another, your driver's license doesn't become invalid when you cross state lines. You may not be able to GET a license in that state, but you can still drive if you have a valid license from another.

Please stop referring to LGBT people as having a sexual preference. I'm gay and there is no way I would have chosen this sexual orientation, given the hatred, bigotry and physical violence against my community. I was born this way and there is nothing wrong with me. You demean an entire community of diverse individuals, when you suggest that how we are "wired sexually" is somehow a choice.

Nobody will ever understand what it is like to be a LGBT person, unless you are one. We did not choose to be born this way, yet we have made our way through centuries of hatred and discrimination. It's bad enough that our Supreme Court won't strike down discrimination against our community, we don't need people who have no idea, what it is like to LGBT, to be telling us who and what we are.

I do not want special rights, I want equal rights. I am a gay American citizen, seen by my own government, as a second class citizen. I'm also a Canadian citizen by birth and I now live in a county that values all of her citizens as perfectly equal. I waited almost sixty years, waiting for American to do right by me and she turned her back on me.

Please stop turning your back on millions of your LGBT citizens and give them the equal rights they have always deserved.